Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Gilles Duguay can't even get basic historical facts straight when attacking Dion

Tory Outremont candidate Gilles Duguay launched into a fairly amateurish attack today while trying to throw dirt at Liberal leader Stephane Dion's record.

I'd suggest that Harper's sacrificial lamb in this upcoming by-election do better research before he opens his mouth again to spout another feeble attack.

"I'm telling you, if you read his CV, the man has been in cabinet since 1995, and if this university professor, descendant of a famous university professor, didn't know anything about the sponsorship scandal, I suggest you ask him whether he knew anything or not," [Duguay] said.

I, like most Liberals and journalists, have checked Mr. Dion's CV very closely. Much more closely than Mr. Duguay obviously did. It's a historical fact that Dion entered the federal cabinet in January 1996, several months after the 1995 referendum campaign. Dion's stellar performance on the national unity file with the Clarity Act continues to be the stuff of legends.

Furthermore, the Gomery Inquiry made very clear that Mr. Dion was absolutely not involved in the sponsorship scandal. Most Quebecers concur with that opinion. Perhaps Mr. Duguay should read a copy of the Gomery Inquiry Phase I report which reads, "On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet [excepting Jean Chrétien and Alfonso Gagliano], since they, like all members of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized by Mr. [Jean] Pelletier and their funding from the Unity Reserve."

If he can't even get his basic facts straight before opening his mouth, what kind of a Member of Parliament would Mr. Duguay make?

9 comments:

GTT said...

As a Liberal, I can assure you that M. Duguay has an impeccable sense of history as well as Canada, and I invite you to meet the career Ambassador and Rhodes Scholar.

I was a student of his, and its a shame the Liberals didn't recruit him first. Do your research. You can't judge a man on a six-second soundbyte.

Matt said...

GTT, so Duguay's impeccable sense of history didn't prevent him from making stuff up and using Tory talking points/falsehoods to try to insinuate that Dion was involved in the sponsorship scandal when history and the Gomery Inquiry clearly said he was not? He made a petty, partisan attack and I responded with the facts.

As a Liberal, maybe you should spend more time defending your leader against such dumb Tory attacks and a little less time defending the Tories.

GTT said...

Matt: while it's unfortunate that Duguay attacked Dion, it doesn't give us the rationale to do the same to Duguay. Both you and I know that being a liberal doesn't mean you have to cease from thinking - and it certainly shouldn't lead to hypocrisy.

Besides, you can't be a journalist and a hack too. Use your reason and avoid using "talking points" from either side. Set a good example, rather than following the liblogs.ca echo chamber.

Best of luck, and hope you don't take offense to my comments. I'm just modestly hoping for a higher level of debate. We can do better than that.

Cheers

Matt said...

GTT I didn't take offense to your comments. However I do find them to be a bit naive. This is politics after all. So when your opponents launch into an attack on you, your supposed to sit back and take it? That's how you lose elections. Politics 101.

I don't claim to be some unbiased journalist on this site. I wear various hats as my description details. This is an opinion blog in which I'm happy to defend my positions.

When your opponent fires off the first negative salvo, like Duguay did, we have to respond in kind. I'm sorry this upsets you, but that's the way the game is played.

When Duguay insinuates again that Dion had knowledge of Adscam, he's pushing a falsehood using Tory talking points. I responded with facts, not talking points. I didn't consider my response to display lack of thinking.

Anyway thanks for reading the blog. I do enjoy these back-and-forth discussions. That's why I'm doing this blog in the first place...

flaggman said...

Man, you Liberals just don't get it! Gomery said that Paul Martin wasn't involved, either - but the vast majority of Canadians (particularly Quebecers) did not believe it! There was only two possibilities - either Martin knew and didn't do anything, which made him a scoundrel; or didn't know, which made him a pathetic incompetent as Finance Minister. Canadians judged accordingly and threw him out of office.

The point stands for Dion, too: either he knew and is a scoundrel, or he didn't know and he was incompetent. Either way, it looks bad. Duguay is right on the mark, and it's going to kill your candidate in Outremont (along with his support for Hamas...)

Matt said...

Yeah right, flaggman, I know you Cons never let a few facts get in the way of your bullshit spin...

Read the Gomery Report Phase I please. I know reading hurts your head, but try anyways.

I fully expect Mr. Coulon to win Outremont with the Tory Duguay losing his deposit just like the last Tory...

flaggman said...

Very typical liberal response: ignore the argument; attack the adversary; then defer to authority (Gomery).

No sense getting in a pissing match here - how 'bout a little friendly wager. If Coulon wins the by-election, I'll give you a guest-posting on my blog to talk about gay rights. If Duguay wins, I get a guest-posting on your blog to talk about the Islamist threat. Whaddya say - put your blogging where your mouth is!

Matt said...

flaggman, what argument did you put forth? "I'm a conservative and I have a vested interest in believing Martin/Dion knew more about Adscam than they did, therefore they must've known?"

That was pretty much what I got from your comments.

So you're questioning the Gomery report's findings? He's an "authority" and therefore can be disregarded? Hmmm... "On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet [excepting Jean Chrétien and Alfonso Gagliano], since they, like all members of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized by Mr. [Jean] Pelletier and their funding from the Unity Reserve."

Not being kept in the Pelletier/Gagliano loop doesn't make one incompetent. We've been over this and over this, and yet you still beat that dead horse.

The ship has sailed...

And as for your wager, sure I'll take you up on that one.

flaggman said...

Vested interest? I'm just a blogger.

The wager - you're on! I'll do a posting about it sometime in the next couple of days.